Share this

Presidential candidate Ron Paul finished only 152 votes behind winner Michele Bachmann in the Ames Straw Poll, yet he’s received almost no credit for it in media reports. With the exception of two newspapers, most major newspaper headlines didn’t mention Paul’s name in their initial reports and by Monday, his name had disappeared from the prevailing narrative of the Republican primary race. Paul’s campaign blames the lack of coverage on media bias – a call Paul supporters have echoed by flooding the inboxes of mainstream journalists writing about the campaign. But some reporters have said the lack of coverage reflects Paul’s slim chances of becoming the Republican nominee.

Has the media been unfair to Ron Paul’s campaign? And is it right for the media to assume who will or will not be the Republican nominee?

There's an assumption that our 24/7 media maw is an out of control independent giant that drives matters on its own without reference to the political laws of gravity that define our politics and culture.

Even in our breathless argu-culture where everyone and everything appears news worthy, there's a common sense wisdom of sorts about what's up and what's down. Ron Paul's chances of getting the Republican nomination, let alone capturing the presidency, are non-existent. Everybody knows it; and so does he. In an arena where competition for time and space is still limited, he's already getting more media coverage than his candidacy deserves.

Reality is setting in. Ron Paul is hypocritical because while he claims to be a fiscal conservative, check his record. He has obtained a huge number of earmarks and I believe he is in the top five percent of earmarking members of Congress.

Now for those who want to legalize drugs, he is a hero and for those who want to defend Iran, he is their choice. However, most Americans (including the media) do not believe Ron Paul's theories are realistic and therefore he really cannot win.

It may have made sense to dismiss Paul four years ago, but now he is no more extreme than the three perceived GOP frontrunners and probably deserves more media coverage.

Fact is, in the only contest so far, only one other candidate, Michele Bachmann, performed better than Paul. The mere fact that the GOP field is now dominated by folks who are to the right of Barry Goldwater constitutes a major problem for a party that has to have a message that isn’t so narrowly focused on winning over the tea party.

The media plays a huge roll in the campaign. I think Newt Gingrich would be a more viable candidate if the media was more receptive of him. Speaker Gingrich has an amazing understanding of policy but that trait never gets discussed in the media.

I think the Paul campaign has some valid points and concerns. However, in today's era of media and social media this is not the same campaign of old. Candidates have to adapt and find a way to earn that media attention. Today's candidate better have a staffer that can make those connections to the media!

Yes, bias is rampant in the media and exists at every level - but bias, properly understood, is not necessarily malice or favoritism toward a candidate; it is the injection of judgments and conclusions into the narrative. By that standard, the minimization of Ron Paul is a defensible act of bias - it is an entirely fair news judgment, for the uncontested reason that his views and history preclude him from winning the Republican nomination.

But if Paul's 28 percent showing is dismissed as an aberration, it should follow that the process that yielded that result may be an aberration too. The truth is that the straw poll is a weak predictor even of Iowa caucus results, and the wall to wall coverage on the cables and political blogs this weekend omitted two facts: the number of participants was equivalent to a city council race turnout in a mid-sized city, and a chunk of the attendees wanted above all to see Randy Travis.

The media has been incredibly unfair to Ron Paul. One has to really wonder if he does not get the coverage he deserves because main stream media does not think he can win the Republican nomination or because main stream Republicans are afraid he can.

Ron Paul has very committed supporters who are drawn to him often because of his pacifist isolationism, support for legalization of narcotics, or demonization of the fed. His supporters' intense commitment has led him to overperform in straw polls and other events where participation is limited compared to the size of the entire electorate.

Obviously the Ron Paul campaign would like to translate success in these small settings into media coverage comparable with candidates who have demonstrated broader support across the entire electorate. Yet, doing well in straw polls and at state party conventions does not necessarily translate into victories in broad-based primaries.

Whatever happened to the concept that reporters cared about "just the facts, ma'am," leaving it to the columnists to interpret and express personal views?

On the one hand we have a senior legislator who has articulated a consistent philosophy that appealed to almost as many participants in the Iowa straw poll as the front-runner and who trailed her by 152 votes.

On the other hand we have the front runner in that poll whose message appeals to a specific and energetic segment of the population, but whose knowledge and understanding of the constitution is limited at best.

Just how does a "reporter" decide whose a legitimate candidate and who is not?

Both Ron Paul and the media are correct. Journalists are following cues from pundits and analysts who are probably prescient in their assessment that Paul is not going to come close to winning the nomination. And it was not unreasonable for Ron Paul to assume that his second place finish in Ames would have received more media attention.

Paul’s complaint, though, evinces one ugly little truth about modern presidential politics. Compelling candidates, regardless of their actual chances of electoral success, generate more media coverage than those who don’t capture the public imagination. Just as people are drawn to attractive, extroverted people with interesting backstories in daily life, voters and journalists are drawn to candidates who are photogenic, energetic and have an interesting story to tell. Ron Paul may have a platform that appeals to a certain segment of the American population; however, his persona is a turnoff for many others. He comes across as more of a curmudgeon than statesman, and that will make it more difficult for voters and journalists to take him seriously.
In a perfect world, voters would invest time learning about the issues and would pick candidates who share their views on the important issues of the day. Presidents would be elected and reelected on the merits of their platforms and their records. However, this is not a perfect world. For candidates like Ron Paul to be viable and attract the media attention they want, they need to consider the intangibles. In short, telegenics count.

As others have suggested, if Ron Paul wants to generate more media attention, he is going to have to get more primary votes than he received in 2008. In order to do that, his campaign needs to focus on GOTV. If he places well in actual primaries, I’m sure he won’t have much trouble drawing media attention.

It’s not obvious that Paul’s chances are less than Michele Bachmann’s, yet she has received enormous coverage for winning by only 152 votes. It does look like media bias against Paul who is not especially telegenic like Bachmann. I guess the question is: Can ugly people expect a fair break from the media?

Exactly what bias is Paul's camp talking about? A liberal one? If the latter were the case, then Michele Bachmann's victory would have been played down given her strong tea party views.

If anything, this largely inconsequential, non-binding political straw poll has been played up too much by the national media. If you don't believe me, then go ask current GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney. He won it last time out and still got smoked in the Iowa caucuses afterward. Mr. Paul & Co. need to stop their whining.

David DulioAssociate Professor of Political Science and Department Chairman, Oakland University :

Of course the press has been unfair to Ron Paul. This happens every election cycle. The press helps create the frontrunner during the primaries by setting expectations for candidates leading up to the votes. It seems like there are always instances where at least one candidate's results don't fit those media narratives. This is one if those examples.

The press should stay away from creating an expected winner. The last time I looked it was voters who chose the nominees.

There is no doubt in my mind that the media picks winners and losers, in terms of setting a compelling narrative. The very fact that some reporters have said the lack of coverage reflects Paul’s slim chances of becoming the Republican nominee confirms the media's bias. Rep. Paul's chances of winning the nomination are about the same as Rep. Bachmann's since the Ames straw poll is only a kissing contest.

A 68-year-old libertarian free thinker such as Ron Paul does not make compelling copy. Ron Paul suffers from actually knowing what he is talking about and having logical supporting arguments. I'm sure if his son, Sen. Rand Paul had come within 152 votes of Bachmann, the media would have spoken of a wounded Bachmann with Sen. Paul and Gov. Perry nipping at her heels.

Rep. Paul eschews the celebrity of being a member of Congress and a candidate for president. He is not rhetorical bomb thrower. He is "honestly" running for the Republican nomination based on his core beliefs. His advocacy of returning to gold standard, avoiding foreign entanglements, limiting the federal government and respecting freedom of choice are as old as the Republic. In failing to give the Paul campaign equal coverage, the media are influencing the public.

With a field of eight or nine candidates, the public looks for a filter to help narrow their choices. That filter should be their family, neighbors and their own research, not the national news media. The national media should explain that the nature of story telling and limited resources forces them to pick winners and losers. But the media should be curious tell the public how Texas produced both Ron Paul and Rick Perry, two wholly different political archetypes.

Fair? Since when is campaign coverage fair? I don’t agree with many of Ron Paul’s positions - yet clearly he has a strong following - and as a sitting member of Congress - he has just as much status as Bachmann. The media should cover the elections - not participate in them!

The media is missing a story about what's behind the appeal of Ron Paul's limited government, constitution-based agenda. There's something likable and charasmatic about the guy even though you may not agree with his stand on all the issues.

Curious reporters would integrate Paul's popularity and support into their coverage. He has passionate followers, and a lot of them. Candidates who make a credible showing, and have a real grassroots base, should be taken seriously. Even if they don't win as the primary process proceeds, they have the potential to impact the race in other ways down the road.

The media has made it's mind up that Ron Paul is a non-starter. This is surprising based on the reaction he gets around the country from college students and seniors. He probably has a much stronger and more loyal base than Bachmann whose backers will switch to Rick Perry in a heartbeat.

The media picks nomination winners and losers all the time based upon what voters say they look for in presidents, reflecting voter biases voters toward electability. The media has already calculated Ron Paul out - and would do so even if he had won the pay to play Ames straw poll - because most reporters, like most Americans, see him as more a prophet than a president.

Poll after poll shows that many voters agree with Paul's diagnoses but not his prescriptions. Republican primary voters now agree with Paul's early warnings about the war in Iraq and the unauditable Fed combining to add billions to our national debt, but they'll likely never catch up with him on total isolationism and ending the Fed.

Ron Paul's views on women's health fit comfortably with the Republican anti-choice extremists who already have conservative darling Rick Perry walk back his sensible HPV position, but values voters say they won't vote for Paul because his other views like drug legalization are too steep a climb. With too many stances out of step with the primary electorate, Ron Paul could only catch up to the top tier if the others stumble.

Ask not whether the media has been unfair to Ron Paul (4,671 votes), but whether it has been “too fair” to Michele Bachmann, who 4,823 Iowans paid to vote for and therefore is now media-declared a person we must take very very seriously as a front-tiered candidate for the GOP nomination.

Ron Paul is as enlightening a candidate as the country has seen since George McGovern; that is, he presents such a different and uncompromised perspective that the voting public can learn a lot from it even if they initially disagree with almost everything about it.

But like McGovern, he is missing the one thing that every successful presidential candidate has had unless they had also previously served as vice president: charisma. Rick Perry has it in spades. Mitt Romney has it, too. And even Michele Bachmann has it, although it goes not much deeper than sexy conservatism and the media novelty of a presidential candidate in a skirt.

Perhaps there is also "curmudgeon factor" about Ron Paul that reminds the media a little too much of Ross Perot, and has them wondering when he will start musing about Area 51 and alien kidnappings. Moreover, the political press is pretty judgmental about following the tactical "rules" of campaigning, and in their cynical eyes Paul is hewing to too steadfastly to his philosophical principles to be taken as a serious player. That's too bad, because Paul has important things to say to America, and his performance in Iowa is proof that he deserves to be heard.

The mainstream media chose to downright ignore Ron Paul's impressive, albeit meaningless, achievement in Iowa. Paul will not win the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, but he will be an extreme irritant to the top tier of the GOP field, and that will be newsworthy in the media's eyes.

There's nothing new here - the media always assumes that the only viable candidates are those who conform most to the dominant consensus.

Ron Paul's courageous struggle against American global militarism makes him anathema to the media, so they have done to him what they did to Democratic presidential aspirant in 2004 Congressman Dennis Kucinich in the past - and their assumption of his non-viability of a given candidate denies him or her media coverage thus making their prediction self-fulfilling.

Ron Paul definitely has strong support among his followers, and his second place finish should not be ignored. His campaign is not a new one: his backers have been in his corner for a number of election cycles, and his libertarian views can draw from tea party and moderate Republicans alike.

The media will enjoy the outrageous statements that will undoubtedly tumble out of the Perry and Bachmann camps more than the policy solutions from Ron Paul. I hope that Ron Paul does get more media love (as his less than 160 votes from winning the straw poll deserve), but Perry throwing out the idea of tarring and feathering revenuers like Ben Bernake makes for better visuals on Fox (in between commercials on how to buy gold-a standard to which Paul wants to return).

With the slim margin of victory for Bachmann over Paul, the media should not try to determine who the eventual candidate will be. Mainstream journalists should not try to shape the field: they should report what happens and how this process affects their readers and viewers. Big media, especially corporately-backed media, is driving out of the views of mainstream America (no matter how many soft focus shots they do of the disaffected and out-of-work). This is another plank in the platform of why many Americans feel that their voices cannot be heard and end up dropping out of the electoral process.

The Ames Straw Poll is an unrepresentative, once-in-four-years political sideshow that, even in the best of years, barely merits coverage from mainstream journalists.

Given the weak quality of this year’s participants, the sideshow shouldn’t have made the front pages or evening newscasts anywhere - and wouldn’t have were it not a slow news day. In fact, the biggest political story of the weekend was about the candidates who didn’t go to Ames - Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. The fact that Ron Paul finished a close second in a meaningless contest - where participants shamelessly bribe voters to participate - earned him exactly the minimal coverage he has gotten. And that, in the overall scheme of things, was too much.

If Ron Paul wants to go from gadfly to contender, he needs to win primaries and caucuses - not blame the media.

In 2008, he rarely did better than single digits in most primaries and caucuses. And he did not win, place, or show in the three big Republican contests of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

If Paul does well in Iowa or New Hampshire, thus beating expectations, the media will certainly cover him. Given his electoral history, though, Paul does not appear to have an obvious path to the nomination and thus he is receiving less coverage than other candidates. The media does not deserve blame for its relative paucity of coverage.

Reporters have been unfair to Ron Paul. He will be a major factor in the GOP field because he has a committed band of followers and has demonstrated fundraising ability. In 2008, candidates Obama and Paul were among the most successful at attracting small donor support to their campaigns. Each of those factors make him more resistant to the types of factors (money and media coverage) that typically drive candidates out of the race.

Paul will be among the Republicans who survive the initial flurry of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to compete in the rest of the primaries. That makes him a serious force in the GOP nominating contest.

Richard BenedettoAmerican University professor; former USA Today political columnist :

At the very least, the mainstream news media have an obligation to explain why Ron Paul came in second in the Iowa caucuses, discuss his base of support and analyze why it is likely that he will not get the nomination.

To be sure, Paul is a candidate with a loyal and vocal base of followers. More news coverage of Paul as a phenomenon, and the issues he espouses, is warranted. People are interested.

It is often said that in the presidential nomination process, the media perform the first act in winnowing the field before any votes are cast by ignoring or giving short shrift to candidates they think have little chance of winning Unfortunately, in most cases this is true. A perfect example is current GOP hopeful Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico. Like Paul, the media have already written him off. How can potential voters get to know him if the media ignore him?

It is bias and Rep. Paul probably does not have a realistic chance of winning the Republican nomination - but I don’t think Michele does either.

If she is so strong why did she only beat Paul by 152 votes in Ames? Only once did I read that the Bachmann campaign gave out 6,000 tickets and Paul gave out 4,750. One would think that little tidbit would be significant given their vote totals and the spread.

Before the Ames Straw poll did anyone believe Bachmann had a realistic shot? And even with the victory in Ames, does anyone believe her circumstances have improved that much? I suspect most of the press attention comes from the fact that she beat fellow Minnesotan Tim Pawlenty. And, Rep. Bachmann is also getting attention because she is Sarah Palin lite. Her statements are provocative and that attracts press attention but she doesn’t try to play the victim like Palin does constantly.

Team Paul is right. His second place finish - 28 percent to Bachmann's 29 percent - in the Ames straw poll is getting ignored, and the media is uninterested in reporting the full story that Paul's loyal following remain loyal. And growing, because in 2008 Paul only earned nine percent of the Ames.

But there's a bigger story and one that doesn't bode well for Mitt Romney. It is the fact that 57 percent of Ames straw poll voters overwhelming favored the two most right wing candidates on the ballot, leaving establishment choices like Romney and Pawlenty and Gingrich in the dust.

The lesson from the Ames is that, in 2012, the GOP base voters are intent on Goldwatering the primary. Bachmann, Paul, or Perry may turn into the great sacrificial nominee because a base conservative nominee will not attract enough independents to defeat President Obama in the general.

Ken FeltmanPast president; International Association of Political Consultants :

The media and many who follow politics are reflecting a belief that what you see is what you get with Ron Paul. As one Iowa supporter of Paul put it on Saturday, "Everybody who supports Ron is here." Paul turns out his people for straw polls. The media are reflecting the belief that the passion of his supporters is deep but not wide. Rather than complaining, Paul's supporters need to prove the media wrong.

Ron Paul has a long track record of winning straw polls and losing real delegate contests. But the media should cover Paul because his long held views on minimalist government have become GOP dogma.

At least the media should give Rep. Paul for his consistency over the years. Paul may be an also ran but at least he holds steady to his core beliefs while the Republican frontrunner, Mitt Romney changes his beliefs more often than Lady Gaga changes clothes.

Media analysts develop "conventional wisdom" about candidates. Paul suffers from the view that he has a ceiling in the GOP -- and is at it. Bachmann is defined as crazy but interesting to follow. That will go on for a while and she will continue to attract media interest, as will Rick Perry, also off-the-wall but interesting.

None of this has much to do with what most Americans think or want. A tiny sliver of activists did this straw poll. It does not reflect important widely shared views or concerns in the country and the whole thing got too much attention.

It is certainly true that Ron Paul is the Rodney Dangerfield of the Republican primary but to ask the media, and dare I say pundits (present company included), to not try to handicap the horserace based on "electability" is like a telling a junkfood addict to order a salad at McDonalds.

The ultimate irony is compared with the so-called conventional and established candidates in the field Paul’s views seem fairly reasonable and mainstream.

Paul is right. It’s not for the media to decide who is or isn’t viable based on what reporters believe to be possible, especially when the data (to the extent that the straw poll should have been covered at all) speak otherwise.

Every competent reporter is sitting on comments Bachmann has made that they know will blow her candidacy up in a heartbeat, but she’s made a great story - until Perry got in, when they’ll probably move away from her to him.

Paul is Perry with an extra 30 or 40 IQ points and a coherent philosophy behind his ideas, whether or not those of us to his left agree with a libertarian view. Maybe he’s the right’s Kucinich; maybe not. In an era of government owned and operated by corporate special interests like we haven’t seen since the era of the robber barons, there may well be electoral room for a candidate who takes a principled libertarian stand rather than a corporate Republican position on small government. I don’t know if he has the charisma to take on a Perry or Romney, but why don’t we let the voters decide that.

Of course the media make judgments. They have limited space and air time, and they understandably cover the candidates who are doing best, who are most likely to actually win, who are good copy. I'd say Ron Paul hits two out of three. Journalists can make a good case that despite his virtual tie in the straw poll, he's not likely to win the Republican nomination - but that's also true of Bachmann. She's not going to be president, and she's not going to be the Republican nominee. So why does she get all the headlines?

A cynic might think that both liberal and conservative journalists have reasons not to cover a Republican who almost wins the Iowa straw poll on an antiwar, anti-drug war platform.

The media should not base its reporting on a candidate's chances of victory. This can easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Paul's second place showing probably should have received more attention if for no other reason than it is a fairly interesting story to tell.

David OrentlicherFormer Indiana state representative (D); professor, Indiana University :

The media has been unfair to Ron Paul. His chances of nomination and election may be slim, but so are those of Michele Bachmann.

Both candidates generate intense support and can win in Iowa and some other states. But they appeal to too small a segment of the electorate to compete successfully in a 50-state campaign. The media is exaggerating the significance of Bachmann and understating the importance of Paul. They will play the same role in deciding which issues are debated and in mobilizing people who might not otherwise vote or become involved in the presidential election process. Paul deserves more coverage by the media.

It is not that Paul received too little coverage for his close second place finish, the Iowa straw poll receives far too much coverage in the first place. It has little to do with the eventual Iowa caucus winner, let alone the nominee.

It also is true that the news media is completely self-empowered to do the winnowing in the presidential nominating process. Michele Bachmann has only a slightly better chance of winning the Republican nomination than does Ron Paul (maybe 10 percent versus zero), yet she got 100 percent of the coverage off her close win in the straw poll.

The news media loves the Michele Bachmann story for some reason, perhaps because they love to set up a slightly off beat woman for a fall. Ron Paul on the other hand is a complete wack job to the media despite being about an inch or so to the right of Rick Perry.

Newspaper reporters play a role like Wall Street does with stock prices - they take everything they know about that candidacy into consideration when valuing a candidate. Ron Paul could have won the straw poll and the story would have been who came in second and third place because there is no one on earth who believes he will win either the nomination or the presidency. He should do us all a favor and run as a third party candidate where he will actually have some affect on the general election.

Rick Perry’s campaign for Texas governor last year criticized his opponent’s ties to a lobbyist caught on film suggesting the lobbyist could secure meetings for a politician with top Bush administration officials in exchange for a donation to the Bush library. Yet, POLITICO reports today that Perry is accepting fundraising help from that same lobbyist as the campaign scrambles to make up lost ground in the fundraising arena. Lobbyist Steven Payne attended one of the meetings of Perry backers who have committed to bundling as much as $500,000 apiece for the presidential campaign. He also boasted he could help arrange meetings with top foreign officials to boost Perry’s foreign policy credentials. Critics say it’s a sign the campaign is becoming too sloppy in its dash for cash.

Could Payne’s involvement become fodder for attacks against Rick Perry? And does this situation suggest Perry is desperate to catch up to Mitt Romney’s fundraising numbers?

Political fundraising in Texas is a pigs trough, with no contribution limits and big favors for big contributors the norm. Perry will now be limited to the $2,500-per-donor federal limits for the first time, and his record of massive fundraising in his statewide races is already coming under the microscope, including a front-page investigative piece in today's Los Angeles Times about government goodies he shoveled out to his biggest donors.

Welcome to the big leagues, Perry; we hope you're ready for the scrutiny.

In Perry’s short time under the national lens, his flaws are already coming into sharp relief. CREW calls Perry one of the “most incompetent and corrupt” governors in the country. He seemingly advocated for violence against Ben Bernanke. He’s claimed the military doesn’t respect Obama as Commander in Chief. This record may be good primary politics, but in the general election they’re called mistakes.

For someone supposedly trying to end politics as usual, Perry’s lobbyist problem is pure hypocrisy. For someone allegedly so concerned about treason and patriotism, he’s been truly disrespectful toward our leaders. For someone who reveres the Constitution, he’s made a lot of suggestions for changing it. We tried cowboy politics. It drove our economy into the ditch, sent young people to war, and destabilized the entire globe. Voters won’t make that same mistake again.

Associations with a terrorist (Bill Ayers) and campaign cash from a convicted crook (Tony Rezko) were issues but hardly fatal for the President in 2008. This too will be a minor blip, a story that will be pushed early and often by Romney and Bachmann but which will likely draw little if any actual blood.

The more telling aspect of the story is what it means in terms of the perceived pecking order of the race; Bachmann may have a straw poll W and Romney may be the default choice, but Perry is the new alpha dog in the GOP pack. He is about to get the full treatment in the national press - something that will probably make this first nibble feel like a gentle massage by comparison.

Now it is Ron Paul's turn to complain about media coverage of the GOP campaign. After all, he finished second in the Iowa straw vote. why should candidates who finished behind him get more ink? And that cowboy governor - he didn't even throw his 10 gallon hat in the ring until after the votes were tabulated.

Why does the media assume the role of God? Can't it simply report he facts? If Paul finished second, give him his due. Let the voters decide who the serious contenders are and who are not.

Welll, as the pols used to say, Balderdash. Has the media been unfair to Ron Paul’s campaign? And is it right for the media to assume who will or will not be the serious contenders for Republican nominee? My answers would be "yes" and "yes."

Why? Well for one reason, Paul's position requires explanation. He is running basically as a pre-World War II isolationist, an America Firster. His foreign policy is embraced by neither the Democrats, the Republicans or any significant political bloc,.Yes, there are serious scholars at places like the CATO Institute who see the world as Paul does but their positions were fairly tested when Paul ran four years ago and received nothing that give him more compelling credentials this time around.

Let me add as one who has from time to time been critical of media left wing bias that we are all well served when reporters who follow a story and know it well offer analysis as well as a stark recitation of the facts. A journalist who has followed other campaigns or who has previously covered Iowa has huge advantages over the novice in terms of interpreting events, utilizing sources and developing a feel for the state's electorate.

Rep. Paul has obviously hit a nerve with his McGovernite call for an America whose ability to project power in the world stops somewhere around Montague Point. Give me a political journalist who thinks that Paul can parlay those views into a serious bid for the GOP nomination and I'll show you a journalist better suited to writing obits.

What was it the Bible said about Pharisees and the doctors of the law? Oh yeah, they say one thing and do another. Perry probably ignores that part of the good book just like he does the parts about helping the poor. Of course Perry needs to bring in big bucks to challenge Romney.

Even with this latest revelation of hypocrisy, I think it won't be long before he is well funded for this race.

Quite obviously, if this lobbyist is violating laws or being unethical in any manner, then the Perry campaign should distance itself from this individual immediately.

From the article, however, it sounds like this lobbyist’s activities are farm system compared to the Brian Ross ABC Investigation into the multi-million dollar Department of Energy stimulus loan guarantees given to companies associated with a major Obama fundraiser.

Of course, who can forget the president and the Democratic National Committee corralling major DNC fundraisers into the Blue Room of The White House for a “pep talk”. Racing to $1 billion in campaign contributions is a very tough business.

Campaign finance is an area that can attract unsavory characters. If this guy in Texas is doing things legally, then leave him alone; if not, then get rid of him. Let’s never, however, make some relative equality between what this little lobbyist in Texas may have done and what ABC News’ Brian Ross uncovered at the DOE.

The fact that Perry is raising money from anyone with a pulse is not going to hurt him in the primaries at all.

What will snag him is that he is a gaffe machine. His John Wayne swagger will ultimately lead to several episodes of "cowboy boot in the mouth" which will challenge his staff to manage news cycles and leave voters pondering the old saw: all hat and no cattle.

Between Perry railing about government taking over our lives and Romney's "corporations are people too" revelation, they're proving more fun to watch this summer than Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Ken FeltmanPast president; International Association of Political Consultants :

The Rick Perry campaign will need to make an adjustment that all presidential campaigns with momentum must make. The campaign will need to screen fundraisers to separate those that appear clean from those that appear, shall we say, a bit sullied.

Some bundlers will want to use their "closeness" to the candidate to impress current and future clients. They may not be as careful in their claims and actions as they should be. One bundler told me four years ago that he was not raising money for a particular candidate so much as "investing in my family's future with other people's money."

Every campaign needs to be careful because every campaign needs the money.

Gov. Perry is used to all sorts of practices and messages that were fine in Texas but will cause him trouble nationally. Suggesting that a government official will face physical harm should he come to Texas, as Perry did yesterday, is more than sloppy. In a post-Gabby Gifford world, it's seriously off-key. Despite what appear to be robust fundraising abilities, Perry may turn out to be another Republican flavor of the month who could not stand the national spotlight.

Moreover, more than a cursory look at his statements on the unconstitutionality of Social Security and Medicare, as well as a good deal of his record, suggests that, should he win the nomination, he would face huge headwinds.

Rick Perry will have all the money he needs to compete with Mitt Romney. Hypocrisy exposure will simply have to wait for the general election.

The Republican primary voters, especially in Iowa (more conservative than anywhere else) simply aren’t interested in rational discussion about things like “ethics” or reality. It’s all about who loves 1950’s America more, a thinly veiled version of the birther movement designed to suggest Obama is somehow not legitimate and needs to be defeated at all costs.

But as much as it works with Republicans, it turns off independents. Now that the tea party has taken over the GOP, the Republican establishment candidates like Pawlenty and Huntsman are being soundly thrashed, and the weak frontrunner Mitt Romney can barely get into the news.

It’s a recipe for defeat in 2012, but that doesn’t change the dynamic. Hopefully, media will continue to cover Perry’s very real weaknesses and baggage, such as the puffed-up Texas job miracle, part minimum wage, part stimulus money, part energy jobs not available elsewhere. But based on how slow the media have been in covering Romney and Bachmann’s weaknesses, I don’t have my hopes up.

Whether Gov. Perry is inconsistent in his ties to lobbyists is not likely to derail his race to win the nomination. What may prove problematic is what he says on the campaign trail.

His statements on Ben Bernanke seem to have become a source of ridicule among bloggers; his casual statement that his wife should not be blamed for his wrinkled shirt may not play well in some parts of the country. Perry now has to show that he can comfortably and spontaneously manage a discourse that matches the expectations for a president rather than for the regionally specific norms of a Texas governor.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.